She is the ONLY female justice (hard to believe in 2009) and the second woman ever to sit on the Supreme Court. (Sandra Day O'Connor was the first). This is her second bout with cancer. In 1999 she had surgery for colorectal cancer, endured months of chemotherapy, but did not miss a day on the bench. In a callous and stupid statement, Republican Senator Jim Bunning from KY predicts that her death is imminent. He said that "nine months is the longest anybody could live" with pancreatic cancer. What a jerk.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1933, and she was nicknamed "Kiki." In the 1950's she applied for a job while she was pregnant, and when she got the job she told them about her pregnancy, and she was demoted three levels in the pay scale. I guess that would inspire me to fight for gender equality and women's rights.
She attended Harvard Law School, and later graduated from Columbia Law School where she was first in her graduating class. She was the 2nd woman to join the faculty at Rutgers Law School. Later she went on to try many cases for the American Civil Liberties Union. In 1993 she was appointed to the Supreme Ct. by President Bill Clinton. She's considered the most liberal judge. She overcame many obstacles as a woman to reach one of the highest and most important positions in our government.
40 comments:
"She's considered the most liberal judge."
8 more Supremes like Ruth would be good for America.
Wikipedia says
Jim Bunning [R-Ky] is one of the Senate's most conservative members, gaining high marks from several conservative interest groups. He was ranked by National Journal as the second-most conservative United States Senator in their March 2007 conservative/liberal rankings, after Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)[3].
Bunning is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I don't know the context of Bunning's remark but I'd like to know. What he is saying about pancreatic cancer is, unfortunately, true. I lost a good friend to pancreatic cancer and it does take you all too quickly. Was Bunning's remark of the "stating a fact" variety or of the "wishful thinking" variety? There's a big difference and we all know how the press publishes things out of context all the time, skewering both sides at will in their scramble for readers and to stay alive.
Bunning did apologize:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/23/
ginsberg-court-just-said-shed/
I never thought I'd see a link to Fox News at LVS but there it is :)
Jon,
Figures you'd relate this to music somehow! ;D
Thanks Anons for info on Bunning. I heard that he did apologize.When he made the statement he was at a a public event which was a Republican gathering, so to me it sounds more like "wishful thinking" on his part. Also,he's not a medical doctor so he's not informed enough to make a medical diagnosis.It was ignorant, cold, and callous, but I am glad he did apologize.
Why is there so oftentimes a wiggle room contingency attached to an "apology?" "IF I offended Justice Ginsburg, I'm sorry." If? The New York Post's "apology" for their cartoon (oh ha ha) of 2 cops shooting a monkey-fied President Obama was even worse, i.e., "if we offended anyone we're sorry unless you're Al Sharpton and then we're not."
Why not just, I screwed up, what I said/did was offensive, I'm sorry, I'll try my best to not repeat my obvious transgression. You know, simple healthy remorse? And accountability.
How come only Liberal Democrats have this circuitry?
Some Rs have it. Arlen Specter has it, for example.
Good point ... and we love your name ...
Merci.
"Baby, baby, where did our laws go?"
by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Supremes
(They even have matching outfits.)
I'm with ya anon 2:20, Bush/Cheney POOFED all sorts of laws having to do w/ torture, surveillance, habeas corpus, etc., etc. Thank God they're gone (and soon to be indicted and hopefully imprisoned) and we have a new "Law & Order" President Obama at the helm.
I, too, join anon 2:20 in mourning the loss of our laws (and ethics and morals and fashion sense) under Bush/Cheney and all I can is Stop! In The Name Of Love
she was nicknamed "Kiki."
That's a really cool nickname but it doesn't go w/ the doily collar (she should lose that)
WGTA:
I think Susan Collins may have it too.
Jon, too funny!!
But seriously, there should be more women on the Supreme Court.
4-5 should be women.
Anon746am, 9 should be the best qualified, whether they be men, women, black, white, whatever. Stating that 4-5 should be women is sexist. Isn't that what this blog is against?
Anon, you are wrong. What's "sexist" is using a woman as a "token" on the Supreme COurt while women represent over 50% of population.
That's not normal or fair. There are many qualified women. That reverse sexism crap won't work here.
Here, read this Mr. Anon:
http://www.oregonlive.com/
opinion/index.ssf/2009/02/redefining_normal_for_supreme
.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/
opinion/index.ssf/2009/02/redefining_normal_
for_supreme.html
Sorry I don't have time to do a better link
Mrs. Dottie, I like your new logo (masthead?) and am I getting the symbolism? Diverse, multi-colored thought, up against a brick wall...? Am I right? And no Pink Floyd [The Wall] references on this!
Hi Jon,
Thanks for noticing the new masthead. Gianni colored the brick wall of our garage, which faces the inside of our yard. I lightened the photo. I like your take on the significance of the brick wall. It also represents the style of house in our neighborhood, something which can be unifying.
It's not "reverse" anything. Making a decision based on race, gender, etc. is racism, sexism, etc.. And if it was wrong 50 years ago, it's wrong today.
Also, please remember that a judge's role is not to be "the voice of the population," to quote from the article you referenced - it is to impartially interpret the law.
Following your logic, it's much more important to have that diversity in Congress - where laws are supposed to be made - than on the bench.
Would you propose race/gender/etc. quotas for Congress as you're proposing for the Supreme Court? What standard wins? Do "beliefs" count as standards? Does the KKK get a seat? Abhorrent as their beliefs are, are they not entitled to them under our Constitution, and does that make them a entitled class as well?
I believe quotas are a dangerous path, and nothing good comes out because we are rewarding the "lucky sperm" not the person who worked hardest. Seems to me that's as un-American as can be.
ANon, I still strongly disagree. Women have been discriminated against and denied same opportunities as men. Just as many women graduate with law degrees as men, and they are just as qualified. It's un-American that there are not more female judges. You can't equate gender with "beliefs". I don't see this as a "quota" I see it as being "normal" to have more females.
What's wrong w/ the makeup of the Supreme Court being more representative of the U.S. population? Why must it be 7-8 white guys, plus a (throw 'em a bone) token or two?
I'm not saying that it should be 7-8 white guys. I also disagree that the Court needs to be representative of the country. I'm saying it should be the 9 best candidates based on their education, skill, intellect, etc., not their race or gender.
We will only have succeeded in eliminating racism and sexism when race/gender don't matter and everyone is treated equally. Until that happens, we've failed.
"Would you propose race/gender/etc. quotas for Congress as you're proposing for the Supreme Court?"
Nah. I propose that Americans are starting to finally see, and accept, America as a (and are you ready for this?) "melting pot." Yep. And I propose that the election of Barack Obama as President of the U.S. proves this.
We won't need to impose quotas, now that non-white Americans, and equality-minded white people, have witnessed the power of their vote.
The shorthand is "yes we can."
You watch ... Congress, your hometown police force, the PTA, you name it, is gonna start looking more colorful, more diverse, and more representative of our population of Americans.
You okay w/ this?
I'm ok with it as long as those elected are the best qualified for the position. If they're not, and only got elected because they're a woman/black/etc. then I have a big problem with it because we're doing our country a grave injustice in installing less qualified candidates.
That's where we disagree - you're using race/gender as a litmus test, and I'm using ability.
We're not disagreeing, I'm using "ability" as the litmus test too.
But > Equal Opportunity Ability.
The days of "rich white guys only" (and the special interests that go along w/ that) running America are over.
It's gonna be really great and will include actual implementation of credos such as "all men are created equal." Ditto women. Gays. Blacks. Muslims. Etc. Etc. Etc.
I'm proud to be an American.
Yes, equal opportunity ability!
I think the best qualified should be chosen for the position too, and I believe there are enough highly qualified women for the job. Plus,they bring their perspective as WOMEN to the issues, and that's important because WOMEN make up more than half of the population.
Anon 3:23, w/ all due respect, do you realize that your hammering emphasis on "best qualified" carries the not so thinly veiled intimation that there haven't been any (or many) non-rich-white-guys who had the ability or qualifications for the Supreme Court, or Congress, or the Presidency, or etc.
It reminds me of what Los Angeles Dodger executive Al Campanis said on national TV to Ted Koppel on Nightline a few years back that there weren't many black managers in baseball because "black ball players, um, don't have the necessities to be major league baseball managers," Campanis said. I hope I'm wrong about you ...
Don't read into things Bill - just because I disagree w/ you does not mean I have an evil intent or beliefs. I agree, there are many well qualified candidates of all races, genders, etc.
It's a simple position - choose the best. If the best is a mixed race transvestite whatever with a flair not seen since Liberace, I don't care - give them the job and get out of their way! But don't give them the job "because" they're a mixed race, etc. etc.
"But don't give them the job "because" they're a mixed race, etc. etc."
Where/when does this happen?
Anon, (I know you are directing your comment to Bill) but I don't think people should be given a job simply because of race or gender either. I'm against quotas too. But you cannot ignore the fact that many highly qualified blacks, women, and minorities have been denied jobs. This is our very real US history. My maiden name is "Ali" and I could not even get an interview in any suburban school district, but I got alot of calls from urban districts. My guess is it was because of my name, not my qualifications. We need to be done with that BS.
"I agree, there are many well qualified candidates of all races, genders, etc."
Cool, we're all on the same page then. Let's give everybody an equal chance. And if/when a non-white-rich guy wins, let's all pledge to not question/smear that person's status as an American citizen after he or she has produced their birth certificate several times already ... deal?
Bill, you're lumping me in with a group that I'm not a part. I assume you're talking about Obama's birth cert. He's legitimate, the people elected him, and it is our duty as Americans as we move forward to agree where we agree, challenge where we disagree, but to keep it civil and focus on issues rather than thinking the other guy is a criminal. There are enough R criminals and D criminals that no one wins that argument, it just goes back/forth like a ping pong match.
Back to the topic at hand, I 'm not ignoring it Angie - I agree that terrible things happened just as you outlined. I saw them, you saw them, and it happened to you which makes it even more personal. My point is that you don't correct those wrongs by doing wrong to someone else. I believe that we will only have conquered racism/sexism when race and sex are irrelevant and people succeed (or not) based on their skills and abilities.
Bill, I've seen "reverse discrimination" many times, in Allentown and other cities, especially since the Diversity movement hit in the 1990s. And it's just as ugly and damaging as what Angie is referring to. Unfortunately you'll have to take my word on that as, if I were to give any examples I'd surrender my anonymity, and that's not something I want to do. I know that I risk not being taken seriously since I'm anonymous, but so be it.
I am enjoying this exchange!
We are too, and we don't deny that "reverse discrimination" happens. I guess it just doesn't bother us as much as it does you because, overall, the scales are still so out of balance in favor of "white rich guys," even when factoring in all that reverse discrimination you've seen first-hand.
And I somehow can't picture reverse discrimination being as "ugly and damaging" as discrimination of the "traditional" variety.
But anyways, we do agree with this statement of yours:
"I believe that we will only have conquered racism/sexism when race and sex are irrelevant and people succeed (or not) based on their skills and abilities."
RE:"I know that I risk not being taken seriously since I'm anonymous, but so be it."
That's not true here at LVS. We don't consider anons "cowards" like some other cranky bloggers.
We understand that some people need to remain anonymous.
Yes, like "The Banker," for example, it's crucial that he remains "anonymous" (wink wink), that's
w/ out question :)
Mrs. D, Point of Clarification, anons are sometimes called "cowards" by some other cranky bloggers, if they disagree w/ that blog's host or his sidekick first responder. However, if anons supply sensational (and baseless) gossip "news tips" (like say whether or not Ardith Hilliard still has a job at The Morning Call) they're considered "ultra-reliable sources." It all depends on the commenters content, and timing.
Here's another example where content, and timing, mean everything: BEFORE "Blogger Tuesday at The Morning Call" was created, criticism of The Morning Call at a local blog was considered "healthy dissent." But AFTER Blogger Tuesday, criticism of The Morning Call started being called "blog hijacking" or a "troll attack."
IE: R's that "have it": I forgot Olympia Snow from Maine. So, Collins, Snow, Specter
anyone else?? Hagel?
Post a Comment